Brigitte Bardot in Búzios

It’s usually the case that it gets harder to find out what happened in the past, the longer ago it happened. But not always.

I’ve been watching quite a lot of World Cup football in Brazil on BBC iplayer, and re-visiting the Rio de Janeiro where my parents lived in the 1960s. We used to regularly drive up the coast to the holiday resort town of Cabo Frio. A little further north up the coast was the Búzios peninsula, where I remembered that Brigitte Bardot once stayed in the 1960s. At the time, this was more or less all I knew, so today I thought I’d see if I could find out a bit more about it online.  I was amazed by how much I turned up. Here’s Brigitte Bardot in Búzios in 1964:


Wandering along the beach in a bikini (click for detail of pig and chickens in the background):


Those are wooden dugout canoes beside her. I once got to paddle around in one of them, and spent hours becoming quite expert at it.

Here’s the little pousada at 199, Rua das Pedras, where she stayed for 4 months. These were owned by local fishing families, and rented out in summer.  The precise longitude and latitude is -22.755055, -41.887185. That’s probably her standing on the verandah:


And this is the room she stayed in, with a commemorative plaque on the door:


The house is still there, but has become a restaurant. For after Bardot’s visit, Búzios became famous, and turned into Brazil’s St Tropez. In 1964 it didn’t even have a water supply.

It does now. And they have a life-size bronze statue of her a bit further up the beach, wearing the same jeans and T-shirt she’s wearing in the top photo:


I’m astonished. I now know far more about that visit than I did back then.

And back then she was a smoker. I didn’t find any photos of her smoking in Búzios. But there’s video of her smoking at a press conference in Rio before she fled from all the attention to Búzios.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Brigitte Bardot in Búzios

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    Ah! La BB! One of the most beautiful women ever, in my humble (female!) opinion. I once had a book containing photos of celebs and film stars etc snapped “impromptu” i.e. not posed – sometimes not even aware that they were being photographed, and of all the supposedly handsome and/or beautiful stars in there, there were just two who looked as gorgeous when snapped informally as they did in their official shots – Robert Redford and her – La BB!

    • junican says:

      Indeed! BB was ‘Marriane’. (I hope that I have got that right!) BB was the epitome of French, feminine pulchritude. She WAS France.
      It is a pity that France now resembles Nathanson.

    • waltc says:

      Your comment + Frank’s blog led me to some OT research:

      Bardot is now 80 and Redford’s 77. Time is not kind. Here’s what she looked like at 73;

      As for Redford, i knew him and his then-wife rather well in the 1970s and you’re right: he looked the same off-screen as on. He was, I always thought, a brilliant actor and, as a person, a nice guy with a wry sense of humor and absolutely no ‘I am a star’ bullshit . He moved out to Sundance and I haven’t seen him in decades except on screen but with age, he lost his looks sooner than most and, seemingly, also his sense of humor. Was watching television not long ago with a friend who knows about such things and as we saw him holding forth about the perils of climate change, she pointed out that he’d had an “eye job” which was why he looked even less like himself.

      Research just now shows she was right:

      BTW, he never smoked so that wasn’t why he aged. And his then-wife was the first person I ever knew or even heard of who was a sudden convert to the secondhand smoke stuff and started asking people not to smoke in her house or near her elsewhere.

      • Barry Homan says:

        You’re right, time has not been kind to Brigitte. But I remember reading some comments she made about her aging and looks, and she said she was fine with all of it. In her 20s-40s she was always having to maintain that “image” as a gorgeous babe, a sex-goddess – and it was often a big burden. “Thank god I didn’t have to keep it up forever, natural aging gave me a break from it!” Her words, or close to them.

        • margo says:

          Time’s not ‘kind’ to any of us, if that means looking young in old age – unless you have ‘work’ done, which sensible BB hasn’t bothered with. She doesn’t need to, since the animals she surrounds herself with probably love her for herself, unlike the men she had to please in her youth. In my opinion, she’s still beautiful.

        • Rose says:

          Those are photographs, the record of a split second in time, if you are lucky you’ll look good, if your unlucky you can be caught looking like Milliband eating a bacon sandwich.

          To see if she is still beautiful you would have to watch her move, her mannerisms, the way she holds her head, or if there is still a sparkle in her eye.

          I am glad that Brigitte decided not to forever chase her youth, there’s a time and a place for everything , including being old and wise and managing to look the part.

        • beobrigitte says:

          As Margo already said: Time’s not ‘kind’ to any of us. It sure is not and on my part I have plenty of jokes about “mother” nature.

          Beauty is a huge market! And the social nudging to “look good” continues. It seems a little shallow to me but people make their own choices. I, personally like my wrinkles – each has a story to tell!!! (I would HATE looking 15 years younger but experiencing physical limitations due to e.g. arthritis etc.)
          A couple of years ago one of my nieces stumbled across a photograph of me when I was 19. She said: “Phoar, Auntie!!!! You used to be really good looking!!!” My reply:
          “What do you mean by USED TO BE…?” I watched her squirm for a couple of minutes and then laughed.

          I am glad that Brigitte decided not to forever chase her youth, there’s a time and a place for everything , including being old and wise and managing to look the part.

          I have a lot of respect for BB and could not agree with you more!!! When she was the sex-goddess her looks was the only thing important to people. It’s a bit shallow, isn’t it?

          In her 20s-40s she was always having to maintain that “image” as a gorgeous babe, a sex-goddess – and it was often a big burden. “Thank god I didn’t have to keep it up forever, natural aging gave me a break from it!”

          Indeed, BB’s image as a sex-goddess continued when I was young. I also remember BB taking up animal welfare; we knew about what she was doing and asking, but she was in her work with this as she was as a sex-goddess; non-intrusive and most certainly non-invading of the public in order to get the funds for ‘her cause’. However, she did use her popularity which secured press coverage.

          BB is no longer a smoker but does not appear to be anti-smoking, either.

      • Frank Davis says:

        And his then-wife was the first person I ever knew or even heard of who was a sudden convert to the secondhand smoke stuff and started asking people not to smoke in her house or near her elsewhere.

        I assume she was a pretty good-looking lady if she was married to Robert Redford.

        I don’t know whether it’s just me, but it does seem to be the wives/girlfriends of a certain age who catch the antismoking bug first. The husbands/boyfriends then follow on dutifully.

        I don’t know whether BB still smokes, but I kinda suspect that she doesn’t, given everything else she’s involved with. And that she stopped smoking when she lost her looks (I don’t know when that was), because smoking was something she mostly did to suppress her appetite and stay slim and good-looking (but also because smoking is sexy). Once the looks had gone, there was no need to carry on smoking, and she may have been more than happy to quit smoking, and to believe all the antismoking propaganda.

        So I’m wondering whether there is a certain kind of woman – one who was something of a belle – who smokes and drinks right the way to the age of whenever her beauty fades, and she turns no more heads, and at that point turns into an antismoking puritan, partly because she has no need of cigarettes any more, but also partly out of spite towards women who remain attractive. It certainly seems to be something that applied to a number of women I used to know. And something that applies much more to women than to men, many of whom (e.g. me) aren’t too much bothered what they look like, or what other people think of them.

        I don’t know much about Redford (except to agree with Jax at the top). But if he went on to have a face job done, then he was desperately trying to hold on to his looks. For some people (maybe lots of people) the loss of their looks is extremely distressing, particularly if they lived off their looks. And they’ll be looking around for something that may have caused them to age so unfortunately, and settle upon tobacco smoke.

        I’ve never had this good looks problem. And I think that everyone and everything ages perfectly naturally and inevitably, regardless of tobacco smoke or anything else. But it’s a fact of life that a lot of people seem unable to accept (or cope with).

  2. I bought 50 copies of BB’s film, “The Millionairess” (1960) several years ago on DVD, but the quality isn’t good enough to sell, so still have nearly all of them left.

    FREE BARDOT DVD! – If you want one, email me at sales (at) with an appropriate subject heading and I’ll send you one. Sorry, offer available to UK addresses only due to the exponential rise in postage rates to make Royal Mail go back into profit to sell it off on the cheap so that Deutsche Post can eventually buy it out (so some say).

    I have to move soon, so you’ll be doing me a favour. There are a few scenes where she is smoking, but I think she is almost incomparably beautiful in this film. It also stars Peter Sellers, who I think is great, normally, but in this film he is as wooden as can be. It was not the part for him. There are brilliant performances from Alastair Sim, Vittorio De Sica and others, though.

    I’ve watched it about twenty times. The first time it seems quite poor, but it gets better with each viewing. I only have about 47 left, so it’s strictly first come, first served!

    • I’m getting confused in my old age. It’s Sophia Loren in that film. All these funny foreign names…

    • nisakiman says:

      I remember as a child that we had a photo of Alistair Sim on the sideboard, with “To Brian (my dad). Break a leg. Alistair Sim” written in the bottom corner. When in later life I asked about it, my father told me he had shared digs with him back in the 30s, before success beckoned, and that he had kept in touch for years after. Two more different men I can’t imagine, but they obviously got on.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    What will be banned next in the name of health?

    IT’S about freedom, stupid! When freedom lovers opposed draconian antismoker laws, they were more concerned about civil liberty than about smokers. Their warnings have been vindicated. Health despots, after having villainised smokers, are on a roll. Buoyed by the lack of consumer resistance, they are extending their war to more things people like, from tobacco, liquor and gambling to sugar, salt and fat.

    The voluminous literature produced to support their war on freedom and satisfaction never mentions freedom or that happiness is healthy. Their vacuous mantra that what they denounce “has no benefits” suggests disregard for or hatred of freedom and happiness. But who are they? The lunatic fringe, puritanical fanatics, fascists, communists … or the World Health Organisation (WHO) with its penumbra of activists?

    At the WHO’s behest, many governments, including ours, embarked on social engineering far beyond the original excuse: protecting “passive” victims of smokers, drinkers and gamblers. Government plans include extending the ban on consumer information regarding tobacco — misleadingly called an advertising ban — to liquor, and making ugly packaging, inaccessible products and tasteless food compulsory. It wants to extend discrimination from people who like tobacco, liquor or gambling to people who like sugar, salt, or pap and boerewors.

    The WHO is contemptuous of concerns about its nonhealth proposals. “Do not allow concerns,” it tells governments, about unemployment, antipoor discrimination, inflation and smuggling.

    The Africa Tax Forum meets in Arusha, Tanzania next week to consider the WHO’s Technical Manual on Tobacco Tax Administration. Governments are expected to embrace what the WHO’s unelected, unaccountable, supragovernmental bureaucrats prescribe. They are presumed to be health experts giving advice, but brazenly exceed their mandate by telling governments what fiscal, budgetary, labour, licensing, crime, and ethical policies to adopt. The “technical manual” is neither technical nor a manual, but about “administration”; one-size-fits-all regardless of divergent economies, cultures and constitutions.

    The manual recommends taxing consumers 70% “excise” — a thumb-suck number — on retail tobacco prices. It wants uniform rates regardless of hugely varying prices, incomes or other taxes. Where value-added tax exceeds 30%, for instance, adding 70% is mathematically impossible. Notwithstanding such absurdities, many governments, including ours, regard WHO recommendations as “treaty obligations” at the expense of sovereignty.

    The manual’s madness does not end there. It purports to be “best practice”, a weasel word which, like “public interest”, means everything and nothing. Having prescribed fiscal policy, the WHO goes on to prescribe budgetary policy by saying how additional revenue must be spent. It provides no estimate of what 70% excise will do to smoking or smuggling. Its second mathematical flaw is the assumption that higher taxes on reduced sales necessarily increase revenue. Its third, is failure to recognise that consumers pay more for supposedly unhealthy products by diverting resources from healthy alternatives with more flexibility of demand.

    The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control encourages price and tax measures against consumers. Legitimising discrimination against smokers legitimises it for all social engineering. It will not end with discrimination against people who like tobacco, liquor, gambling, sugar, salt, fat or junk food. As our bodies metabolise carbohydrates into sugar, dairy products have fat, and many tasty foods are salty, next will be discrimination against consumers who like bread, biscuits, cake, sweets, rice, potatoes, cold drinks, boerewors, chips, hamburgers, pizzas, and much else. The WHO says obesity is a leading health risk. As unprotected sex is our biggest killer, what is to stop the WHO from introducing prohibitions and taxes on these health risks? When will we stop Big Nanny fine-tuning our lives?

    • Louw is director of the Free Market Foundation.

    Whats left to be said…………………………

    • nisakiman says:

      Good article. I just tweeted it – it deserves a wider audience.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Harley, PRICELESS!!

      The WHO says obesity is a leading health risk.
      And every now and then you read/hear the whining of a “fat” person:

      Smokers get help!!!
      Ah, indeed. We get UNWANTED “help”.

      You don’t have to smoke but you have to eat
      Ah, correct. However, it is YOUR choice HOW MUCH food you put in your face and it is MY choice to smoke or not.

      In my view there appears to be a lobby-group driven, general (unwanted!) consensus that ADULTS need to have their ADULT freedoms and responsibilities controlled/removed.

      • nisakiman says:

        In my view there appears to be a lobby-group driven, general (unwanted!) consensus that ADULTS need to have their ADULT freedoms and responsibilities controlled/removed.

        Yes, a hundred odd years ago, the favoured approach was a surgical frontal lobotomy. Now they’ve discovered how to perform the frontal lobotomy non-invasively, purely through relentless propaganda and bread and circuses.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    NATO Opposes ‘Corrective Statement’ Signs

    Files legal brief in response to new proposal

    Published in Tobacco E-News

    By Thomas A. Briant, Executive Director

    ‘Corrective Statements’ From a Retail Perspective6/11/2014

    MINNEAPOLIS — In June, NATO reported about the issue of “corrective statements” that arose in 1999, when the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against several cigarette manufacturers regarding statements made by the companies about cigarettes and smoking. Then, in August of 2006, Federal District Court Judge Gladys Kessler issued what is called a “remedial order” which, in part, required manufacturers to develop “corrective statements” about cigarettes and smoking.

    Besides requiring the manufacturers to air television ads and print newspaper ads with the corrective statements, Judge Kessler’s order also required each manufacturer to place a countertop sign measuring 18″ wide by 30″ high with the corrective statements on the store counter in every checkout line of each retailer that had a retail merchandising contract with the manufacturer. In addition, the manufacturers would also need to place a corrective statement sign equivalent in size to a display case header sign on cigarette display cases.

    Both the counter top signs and the header display signs would need to be displayed for a two-year period. If a retailer refused to display the signs, the manufacturer would be required to suspend that retailer’s merchandising contract for one year.

    On June 4, NATO filed a legal brief with the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Columbia explaining why the court should abandon the requirement that retailers have countertop and cigarette display case header signs that list “corrective statements” about cigarettes and cigarette smoking. At the same time, the U.S. Government and public health organizations filed their legal briefs and urged the federal judge to require point-of-sale corrective statement signs in the counter area of retail stores, rather than on store countertops. This could include corrective statement signs hung from store ceilings or floor clings. In addition, the government suggested to the court that these signs be placed on the exterior of retail stores and on gasoline pumps.

    The health organizations also claimed that the corrective statement signs would not impair the merchandising contracts between manufacturers and retailers, and that the required two-year time period to display the signs is only temporary. Finally, both the government and the health organizations continued to assert that requiring these corrective statement signs does not violate retailers’ First Amendment rights.

    In reply, on June 18, NATO filed an additional response brief to counter the new ceiling sign and floor cling proposal, reiterate how requiring the signs will impair merchandising contracts, and reinforce the fact that the First Amendment rights of retailers are being violated. In its brief, NATO argued that the proposal to hang signs from the ceiling will cause the same security risks as countertop signs because the line of sight for ceiling mounted or wall mounted security cameras will be blocked by the signs. Moreover, floor clings may have adhesion problems due to the various kinds of store flooring causing the clings to peel up and create trip hazards. Also, since cigarette sales are not conducted outside of a store or near gasoline pumps, there simply is no “point-of-sale” where signs should be required.

    Contrary to the claim by the public health organizations, NATO explained that the merchandising contracts between manufacturers and retailers would be impaired because those retailers that decide not to display the signs will lose the promotional payments under the contracts. Regarding the First Amendment argument, retailers have a constitutional right to speak and not to speak at all. That is, retailers can choose whether or not to display the signs. However, for a court to compel innocent retailers to display government-sponsored signs is a violation of the right not to speak under the First Amendment and on this point NATO will remained steadfast.

    NATO is waiting for the federal district court to either issue a final ruling on whether the corrective statements proposal will be abandoned or if an oral argument hearing will be scheduled for the manufacturers and NATO to further explain why the court should not proceed with the point-of-sale corrective statement sign requirement.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    It appears Judge Kessler was doing the total bidding of the Nazis with this and cutting off the retail sales of the product in the process. BACK DOOR PROHIBITION VIA FEDERAL ORDER EHH!

    Both the counter top signs and the header display signs would need to be displayed for a two-year period. If a retailer refused to display the signs, the manufacturer would be required to suspend that retailer’s merchandising contract for one year.

    • Rose says:

      Not only do they like poking people with sharp sticks, they also enjoy making other people,against their will, poke people with the sharp sticks they provide.

      Playground bullies can only dream..

  6. garyk30 says:

    “(click for detail of pig and chickens in the background):”

    Hah- hah, smart ass.

    No problem, Sophia was also the stuff of young men’s dreams.

    She seems to have aged better than most of us.

    The Queen was also quite the good looking young lady.
    She made it very easy to be a ‘Royalist’ .

    She gave real meaning to ‘a regal beauty’.

    • nisakiman says:

      To my mind, Sophia Loren was one of the most beautiful women in the world. Absolutely stunning, and with effortless grace. And yes, as you say, Gary, she has aged very well, and I believe she has done so without any surgical enhancements. Even now, at the age of 79, she is an attractive woman.

        • Marie says:

          I agree with BB:
          ““I don’t have lunch. I just nibble on a bit of chocolate or some fruit. Lunch makes me waste time.”

          But she does like a hearty supper” – and so do I ;)

        • beobrigitte says:

          Indeed, I do remember Sophia Loren being another female men drooled over and women aspired to look like when I was young.

          BB always scored higher with me, though. At the time there was the ‘Alice Schwartzer’ option (pretty aggressive women’s lib pushing) or BB’s way of life.
          In my view BB did more for women’s lib than Alice Schwartzer could ever dream of! BB always embodied individuality – by the looks of it she retained this and let her looks fade into “the next generation”.

          Life has never intended for any of us being on this planet forever!! Life is the biggest killer – it has a 100% success rate of causing death.

    • Rose says:

      The Queen was indeed very beautiful when she was young, I used to love to see her on the news riding side saddle to the Trooping of the Colour.

      As a little girl she waved back to me as the Royal car drove by.
      I know she waved at me, because my Dad and I were the only ones waiting at the layby.
      : )

  7. Steven simon says:

    Always remember its not what you look like externally its what you are inside that counts.a good heart is far better than good looks.

    • nisakiman says:

      I’m fortunate in that at the age of 65, I still look like a 35 year old Adonis. If I could just get that pesky comb-over to stay in place in a high wind, I’d be perfect.

      • Reinhold says:

        Yes, from a certain age upwards, the wind isn’t your friend any more. I know what you’re talking about.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I’d be glad if it was only the wind turning my enemy!!!! These day even GRAVITY has it in for me!!!!! I could swear that some things are a lot lower now than they used to be. Everything goes south. If this continues I might find myself in the antarctic without having to persuade a team going there to take me along!
          Oh, well, it’s life. We deal with it. And have a laugh.

  8. waltc says:

    Frank said of Redford’s then wife, “I assume she was a pretty good-looking lady if she was married to Robert Redford.” Actually, she was a rather plain though sweet-enough-looking blonde. A Mormon, IIRC. though that had nothing to do with her smoke phobia. I recall she announced that some doctor had told her it was causing some symptom. Nor was his first post-marital girlfriend (tho I don;t think he and the wife divorced, just permanently split) any goddess either. That wasn’t what he was looking for.

    As for him, he was always fair skinned and spent months unto years riding horses thru Western canyons in beating sun. I’d suspect he did the surgery to keep his acting career alive (he starred in something as recently as last year I didn’t see) and if you look at the Before shot in the link, you can see why people were starting to say he was looking like an old woman more than an old man.. i never knew him to be vain about his looks; I think in a way they surprised him and./or he found them a distraction, even though he knew they were a part of his success or access to success. But there are many things in life we take for granted until we lose them.

  9. Pingback: Online and Offline | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.